tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 15, 2016 6:00am-7:01am EDT
is there anyone else who wishes to rise in opposition or support for this amendment? mr. lee? >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. i think it is important for us to remember that as members of this committee we can make any change in a rule that we want. ose toegates, we can cho vote for whomever we choose on the floor, assuming the rules allow that. has bef the focus today en understandably on expanding our party and making its appeal broader. making those who have felt excluded from it feel more included. and that is important. we send the opposite signal every time we take our rules and clampdown our rules further. we make it last possible for delegates to exercise their rights to have a voice in this
process. now, i think our elections are absolutely important, essential, fundamental. delegates historically have been considered honorbound to follow the outcome of their state's primary election. and they overwhelmingly have done so. it has alsoally, been the case that delegates have retained some option, some choice to make their own decisions. unusual event that they find some conscious binding reason why they cannot do that. at the end of the day, we have to remember that it is important for our presidential nominees to win thewo levels, to primaries and win over the delegates. it almost always happens. i hope that whoever our nominee is going to be this time will in fact win over the delegates. but worlds like this are not going to help that. as weroblem, this angst, will see in a few days is not going to go away because we paper over it with rules.
i say to mr. trump and those aligned with him, make the case, make the case of those delegates who want to have a voice. make the case they should use their voice to support him. do not make the case their voices should be silenced. that is not going to help. that is not going to help elect him president. not going to help our party in the long run. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone who wishes -- please. thank you. is there anyone who wishes to rise in support of the amendment? have great respect for senator lee. as we all do for representing our conservative values, but sir, i have to take issue with you on something. my understanding is that you represent the grassroots. and yet what i do not understand about your logic is you want to ignore what are really the grassroots which are
millions and millions of voters who voted for donald trump. and, instead, transfer the opinion and the expression of that opinion through a vote to a couple of thousand delegates. now, to me, if we're really representing the grassroots, and we're really representing conservatism, we listen to those voices, and we exercise our responsibility but more importantly, we advance the conservative cause. the only way to advance the conservative cause is through a strong republican party that is united to defeat hillary clinton and the democrats this fall. that is the only way to do it. [applause] sir, there is nobody else running for president in this party right now than donald trump. no other person has said i am running, i will accept the nomination. nobody is vetting vice presidents, raising money with the republican national committee to prepare for the battle which begins in two months with early voting. i have been involved in the
conservative movement since 1972. 44 years. a member of the reagan youth brigade. and i will tell you the most important thing to me is we don't let the left wing take over our country this fall. and the only thing that is standing between that happening is our victory with our nominee and our ticket. it is time, sir, for you and everyone else to come together to say this party will be united and we will defeat the democrats and these motions are a way to do it. i do applaud you for your service. thank you. >> thankyou. is there anyone who rises in opposition, in opposition? are you rising in opposition? >> yes, madam chair. from idaho, i would like to request that future comments by speakers be directed to the chair. i have a question if the sponsor
would yield? >> would the sponsor yield to questions? >> a clarifying question. >> yeah, ask it through the chair. as you correctly pointed out. ask it to the chair and i will directed to him. >> with regard to the language in the amendment, -- the finding of delegates pursuant to rule 16a, in my reading the rule correctly that that binding could be either through state the state rule, or just result of the primary, absent any state law or state rule, you are still bound by the result of the primary? are those all three ways you can 6a, that we are enshrining with this amendment? >> that seems to me to be requiring a legal opinion. would you like to address that?
the gentleman is correct. because the national party rules always serve as primary. the national party rules therporate the primary, national rules incorporate the primary results. the national rules always supersede any state law to the wherery or in this case, there is a contrary rule, any state party rules to the contrary. >> irregardless if there is no state law and no state rule that statedelegates from that to the outcome of their primary, they would nonetheless be bound to the result of the primary pursuant to the national rules? >> that is what the national rules provide. all right. is there anyone that would like to rise in support? are you rising in support or opposition? >> i am in support. >> would you like to say anything else sir? >> no. yes, i would.
a house divided against itself shall not stand. when i came into this, i was by someone asked helping mr. cruz. s, would youruz win vote for him. and i said absolutely yes. wins,, when mr. trump would you? i know the binding is only as good as our would purchase that, i would. excuseto ask all of you, me because i am very emotional about this, i need to ask you -- are we going to do this together? are we going to be divided for the law says the rule says that you are legally bound to whom were candidate of whom you standing with. for who you were walking with. i'm only is good as my word. and i ask you to be good as your
word. a house divided against itself shall not stand. he is the nominee. he won 1543 delegate votes. and 14 million came and they voted for him. why cannot we as a body come together with the rnc and everyone else and get together and show the whole world and the universe that we are a party, not divided by the party of one? >> thank you. [applause] >> so, as a state representative i can see differences. this amendment is meant to keep those with a financial stake in being on the rnc. we are the party led by the common man. i for one, for example, i am a farmer in maine. not those with alter your motives. let's reduce the influence peddling without appearance -- -profitopriety, non
lobbyists are exempt, which include but not limited to the nra, of which i am a lifetime member. the national right to life or other non-profit lobbyists. this amendment is brought forth to slow down the purchase of a rnc by the for-profit influences. thank you. >> are those who wish to be recognizing opposition to this amendment? the gentlelady from california. a member of this body and is a first amendment lawyer from california. banning people from participating in politics because of their chosen profession is un-american and conflicts with the fundamental right to earn a living which is part of our freedom guaranteed by the constitution. this amendment would not only ban anybody who works for any entity that does lobbying, with -- exception of nonprofit we do not have time to get in the distinctions -- but in
not limited as a duration. anyone who has worked as a lobbyist would be banned according to this rule from ever serving as a member. and i think that is excessive as well. with registered lobbyist, which is the case of the federal and most of our states, there is total transparency. there is not backroom dealings. once you single out lobbyists, we are looking at singling out other potential disfavored plaintiffs, such as lawyers, such as views car salesman, such as insurance agents, such as farmers who people don't like. as the preamble said, republicans believe in bringing people together and not carving them into separate groups and casting them out. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone who wishes to rise in support? anyone who wishes to rise in support?
yes, thank you. >> thank you. from minnesota. as a state representative i have witnessed firsthand the influence of paid lobbyist focused on spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars versus advocating for everyday hard-working citizens. i strongly encourage support of grassroots rule. a republican party should be giving voice to everyday hard-working citizens. and not giving in the voices of insider lobbyists employed by government and for-profit corporations. this rule would not affect, as author ofue and the this amendment mentioned, it would not affect, for example, registered paid lobbyist for the right to life, inc., because that is a nonprofit organization. or a gun activist, for example, who voluntarily lobbies on
behalf of the nra, ila, the lobbying arm. but it would affect jobs, for example. an employee for the podesta .'s lobbyistf d.c firms who would be affected. so, i encourage a favorable vote for this amendment so that this rule that no rnc member has the financial state in being on the rnc. and this kind of insider politics has been heavily permeated within the dnc. we all know that. republican voters have overwhelmingly rejected insider politics this election cycle. our presumptive nominee has clearly campaigned against special interests, too. boldlicans need to make a statement that we stand in strong contrast and have higher standards than the democrat party. we make america great again when we empower the everyday
americans instead of insider lobbyists with alternative motives. i urge the committee to support this amendment. >> thank you. is there someone who wishes to speak in opposition? >> madam -- >mike stewart, west virginia. i stand in opposition to this. i truly believe that every state should be able to determine its representatives to the rnc, whether that be three pastors, lobbyists, or three flood victims from southern west virginia. it is important at the end of the day, it is a states rights issue, that each state gets to determine who we sent to this important body, the republican national committee. i also point out that if we pass this, a lot of you said this is not going to go away. they are still going to be there but the republican national committee will be viewed as an exclusionary, hostile group to this group that plays an important role in the way our government functions. and so, with that, i urge you to
oppose this amendment. while it is appealing on its surface -- trust me -- who loves the lobbyist? it is like the use car salesman, and i'm a lawyer. at one point who can decide who can be members of the rnc. let's leave that to the people in our districts and probably vote against this amendment. >> thank you. are there others who wish to speak in support of the amendment? others who wish to speak in -- yes, gentlelady from louisiana. >> i wanted to make one thing clear. our fellow delegate who was opposed to this, so that this anyone who ise whatever has been a lobbyist and that is not what this says. it says if you are a paid .obbyist, not if you have been i want to make that clear. and another thing that would be conflicting, this would exempt nonprofit such as right to life,
exempt the nra lobbyistss. . so, actually, it is just, you know, it's the grassroots people that actually -- they would be exempt from this. and there are a lot of lobbyist on this committee right now. you know, we have the media watching. so we have an opportunity to say the republican party is the grassroots party. and it is the grassroots people that is going to make the decision for the rules and not the lobbyist, the paid lobbyist. thank you. >> chair recognizes mrs. da monte. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. i have to say when i first heard about this amendment i thought it might be a good idea. let's face it -- lobbyists? in some circles, it is not exactly the nicest term. reflection, i started
thinking, ok if we start we lobbyist, where do we go from consultants,s, political operator, campaign managers, even elected officials? it's now m believe that this amendmenty, although well intended, and i do think it is well intended, is not practical. and i think it is going to open up a pandora's box. i respectfully ask you to join me in voting no on this amendment. thank you. >> thank you. are there others who wish to speak in support? in support? mr. yu? >> thankyou, madam chairman kent actually, this is philosophical debate. do we want limited government, more spending, and we want small government. we want big government. and also we want lobbyists to dictate and carry -- curry
favors for the big industry at the disadvantage of small business. we have a conflict of interest here. if our goal is reduce the size of government and government spending and we are -- meanwhile, you have paid a lobbyist, they are paid to forying for a third party profit and for favorable regulation. that is crony capitalism. either we believe in small government or we should not be in this business as a party. this is a political party, after all. do we want politics as usual? of course not. last point is, take look our nominee donald trump's message. how he got where he is today. so, i'm supporting this measure. thank you. >> thank you. does the gentleman rise in
support or opposition? >> in opposition. let me say at this juncture, i apologize that i do not know all of your names and all of your states, but if you look at how small the tell you print is is, you will understand i cannot see where you are from. this gentleman i recognizes. >> the state of maine. it was my honor to serve as the assistant house republican leader in the maine legislature. we passed some great reforms limited the impact of lobbying on the maine legislature. in doing that, maine has some great laws involving registration of lobbyists, but some other states don't. my concern with this amendment is that it would create an of differentork definitions of lobbyist throughout different states. where someone may be able to state ofthe rnc in the california or colorado would not
be able to because they have to register the lobbyist in maine. it should be up to the individual states when electing their national committee folks to make the decision whether they want a registered lobbyist or not. and so, i oppose this. >> thank you, sir. those who wish to speak in support? mr. blackwell? over a longeen period of time a process by which power in our party has been centralized. the trend of what we have voted defeat effortsto to decentralize and to pass efforts to centralize. there i ss a real problem with lobbyists as described in the who benefit from their membership on the
republican national committee and make their living sometimes by lobbyinglivings and the influence they have as part of our national committee. favoreople tend to centralizing power, because if you are a lobbyist all you have got to do as lobby the person who has the power. it is a lot harder to get the committee to pass something if you have got a convince everybody at the grassroots. and it's a problem that needs to be solved. i would like to run a little experiment. the words are a person who is registered with any government entity as a paid lobbyist, other than a nonprofit organization or an entityloyed by whose primary purpose is providing lobbying services to others." a show like to ask for
of hands, how many people on this committee or in this room are in fact registered lobbyists with the government entity. >> such a demonstration is not appropriate in this body. not?drer what grounds is it >> i will refer to the parliamentarians who just so advised me. they advised me that under roberts that is designated a straw poll and is therefore inappropriate for this body. i'm sorry, sir. fun.e, it would've been thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> i'm sure it would have been. however, if we start bending roberts for one, we open the floodgates and i cannot do that. the chair recognizes ms. hudson. then we are going to go back and
forth between these microphones and till everyone gets their opportunity. >> thank you, madam chair. vermont. i rise in opposition to this amendment for the reason that it has been stated this amendment empowers the grassroots. by telling them who they can or cannot vote for, how exactly how we empower number -- are we empowering them? we are taking away a candidate they can consider voting for. i would encourage you to vote against this amendment. >> steve dupree from new hampshire. let's start with the basic points. we are elected by our state. in new hampshire, there are 550 people who get to vote. , we are homeo sig to a lot of gun manufacturers. are we going to say because somebody works in a government relations department in the state capital in new hampshire they are in eligible to serve? some states have considered that. virginia has a law. indiana does. that does not mean we hear should impose that on everyone
else. it is important to keep in mind that in some states if you are an employee and a firm, let's say does a law firm in there is one lobbyist who's a lobbyist da you are -- you're deeme lobbyist because you are a member of the firm and you will be disqualified. i also want to think about the are solvingaying we this problem with the nonprofit exemption. under this rule, someone who is a registered lobbyist for planned parenthood, many of you wouldn't find not perhaps a good could runs committee, for office but someone who is a could not.r sig it is manifestly unfair. the other thing to keep in mind is that if we are going to start accusing people who are engaged in the honorable profession of ineligible being in we should look at the pernicious influence of people who do business with our committee --
--dors, people are nrcc, the there are members who had contracts with them. and that would lead to some much more offensive than being a lobbyist. i urge everyone to vote no on this amendment. >> is there anyone else who rises in support? >> madam chairman? >> mr. ash? support but i would like to offer an amendment for consideration. >> that is>> in order. >> i want to go with my microphone because my eyes are so bad, i cannot see this. says, propose is where it " providing lobbyist service to other, "then shall be in theible to serve at republican national committee or as a proxy" that be struck.
my concept is, just to provide disclosure. ok? a simple disclosure statement which is not unusual. ok. that's great. which is not unusual for almost any organization that many of us belong to back in our respective communities. >> mr. ash? i'm going to ask you to come to outcouncil's table and work the specific language while we allow others who have already been standing in line for quite some time, some of them, to be able to express their opinions. then when you have that drafted, we will come back to your motion. >> i would ask we not call for the previous question and get cut off in the meantime. i will go as fast as i can. would askir individuals not to move for previous question and till mr.s ash has had an opportunity to present his amendment. the chair will recognize mrs. davidson from ohio. this week,in
republican national committee we adopted a resolution. and that resolution stated what i think many of us believe very strongly in, that federal regulations on businesses are hurting our economy and we felt that was unfair. now, if you are not permitting people to serve in the republican national committee that maybe have represented some of these interests, like the national federation of independents or a chamber of commerce or the local businesses depend upon them to represent them, or the farmers are agricultural community, to testify why those regulations are not needed and try to protect themselves so they can continue to profit and provide the jobs and get the strong economy that we want, i am not quite sure what we're trying to do. >> thank you. is there anybody else who would like to speak i supportn? the lady over here, you have
already spoken once. we need to allow everyone else an opportunity to speak before we can give you a second opportunity to speak. mr. yu, have you spoken to this particular amendment? >> yes, this is based on personal privilege. >> and what is your point of personal privilege? >> the national committeemen new hampshire mentioned -- paid, got a contract. >> excuse me, sir. this is not a point of personal privilege. no, i'm sorry. it is not a point of personal privilege. if you have a point of personal privilege you may bring it, that you cannot use it to make arguments. we'll recognize a lady standing at this microphone. >> pat thomas from missouri. myould like everyone of colleagues to realize that why are we differentiating between for-profit and not-for-profit? we have had many people here today talk about money grabs and
big government and all these issues. many not-for-profit take much more administrative dollars from our tax dollars and to many of us we would actually say they a largerem to degree. for that reason, i would urge you to vote no. >> thank you. is there anyone else who has not spoken previously who rises to speak in support? the gentleman here. >> thank you, madam chairman. colorado.from i would like to thank you for allowing this debate to happen from georgia evans for allowing this debate to happen. i have a question. i would love to hear from perhaps some of those folks who oppose this, or maybe there are some folks on the campaign, the derailment from massachusetts. i would love to hear what our presumptive nominee, donald trump's position on this is. i've heard him speak about lobbyists more than i can count. and i tend to agree.
anybodylove to hear, if here knows what his position would be on this resolution or this rule. i would love to hear it. thank you, madam chair. >> i am not certain it is in order to have someone else speak for someone who is not a member of the committee and is not present. if anyone wants to cross that bridge, i guess we will try it when we get there. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you. where on earth do i begin? to testify in front of the legislature on legislation that affects constables. i have to register as a lobbyist so i do get paid. am i a paid lobbyist? oh, it's not for profit governments, it don't count. made them competitive.
i get paid a token salary about 1100 bucks a year, and i get paid from my ov. a went into a township of democrat them ratic counsel, beat over the head, stole $150,000 and usiness from them, trust me, i'm profit making. nonpaid, i could drive a truck through this stuff. don't get me wrong. everybody in the media in here mouthing the consultant industrial complex. i understand the problem. instrument. doesn't address the problem. don't even get me started on state rights. somebody is a lobbyist and their state party wants to elect it? , whose business is ow, it's off the hook, it's outrageous
, i'm sure well intentioned. what's the nonprofit. the you know what, president of common core pays more in income taxing than i take home. what does even nonprofit mean? i vote no. to recognize this lady. i'm not sure what state you're you're about to tell me. >> i'm bell fris bee from mississippi. worker in the republican party nine years, and tell i'm not anymore. but i have always felt that we the grass roots. i believe in the grass roots. we elect our people, we
start in our county. and i'm a member of the hancockcounty republican committee. we go to our state convention. we elect our representatives to go to the state. that is about as grass root as you can get. go to our state, and we represent them, and before, as a to the state i could ask my county, who do they want to support for our national man and our national committee woman, as well as the other elected people that we do. so i think it is grass roots. states' rights and i think that's where it ought to stay. >> thank you. recognizes the gentleman at the back microphone. >> thank you, madam chairman. forston from the state of delaware. the other things, i am party attorney in delaware and
as a result i work with legislators quite a bit in the assembly so i'm very familiar with the legislative process. that i'll say troubles me a little bit about conducts its nc business, this rules committee eets every four years, people come together with ideas. a lot of times, the legislative rocess is strengthened by reflection, collaboration, and looking at things more carefully, because one of the avoid is all have to the law of unintended consequences. for example, in delaware, you're a lobbyist if you go down to the general assembly, you a company and your boss i need to you go down and testify about this bill. congratulations, you're paid. behalf of king on legislation. in theory, you have to register as a lobbyist. to client of mine asks me go down to the general assembly, i've lawyer but suddenly
got to register as a lobbyist. ven though i might do it for one client once every two or three years. and i don't know what the are in west virginia or nevada. they're a patchwork, but people this t caught in innocently enough and suddenly they're off the rnc. though, if it ly ain't broke, don't fix it, and i rule is a r if this solution in search of a problem. nobody has pointed out to me any problem that the rnc has had. has pointed out to mow any problem that a state has had in electing its members of the rnc, and i think as long as the states know who they're send ng, they're free to to the rnc whoever they want. so i oppose this amendment on a grounds, not the least of which is that in a one hour or half-hour debate that's being held with no prior warning, i don't think we should be doing because i ike this
think it could come back to bite us. thank you. thank you. ash. hair recognizes mr. >> thank you. bruce ash from arizona. i'm trying to get this put together. 17, after the we wouldices to others delete everything after that and add, and hopefully, this is on the board, and is elected to the republican national committee, shall to the secretary of the republican national committee his or her status as a lobbyist a manner to be established by the secretary. hile it might be a great grass roots idea. ash.r: just a moment, mr. we need a motion. >> second. a second.re's
almost there. thank you. mr. ash, if you'd like to proceed. >> thank you very much, madam secretary. here have been some wonderful arguments for both sides on this issue, and i admire the who filed this amendment to begin with. we may not get to the place that to be and perhaps a lot of people want to be with respect to how this is going to handled.
but one thing i think all of us other volunteer and other paid work we do, we have to disclose other organizations we work for, other conflicts of interest we may potentially have. we're used to disclosure. lawyer, i h not a know that disclosure is a very trying to hing when avoid difficulties in various matters that we have public with.rse come dea, which would after services to other, and is elected to the republican committee, shall disclose to the secretary of the republican national committee his or her status as a lobbyist in a manner to be established by the secretary. i think this is a fairly straightforward matter. we have a great counsel's office. i'm sure that they would work inh the secretary of the rnc order to put this together.
we would keep a file at the rnc, and it would be available for members, cess to perhaps. and this would all be at the secretary, of he course. but the idea would be is we would begin disclosure process. doesn't mean that anybody's disqualified. that doesn't mean that we're ability to earn money, and it doesn't mean that we don't want them to be issues, g for either candidates, or any other political means. but it is a start with disclosure. and i urge consideration and adoption. ash.: thank you, mr. would like eone who to speak in opposition? the gentleman here. >> steve pierce, new mexico. i mostly want to speak to the one phrase that stands now and is in the original amendment the bias in is favor of nonprofits. stop f the attempt is to people from increasing the size
of the federal budget, which has the dominant commitment, or i think comment, then that understanding that the lobbyists who approach our office in congress, my office, times are nonprofits, and they never have asked for us to the budget because many imes, they are, in fact, the beneficiaries of money that's coming through the budget. so this bias that suddenly holy than are more anyone else is something i think we would quite like to closely and then, again, the underlying -- the comments about all lobbyists are bad, some lobbyists are extraordinarily knowledgeable. i would not want to approach the idea of nuclear arms a paid ation without lobbyi lobbyist. my deal is, you tell me both of the argument. so again, this idea that we've separate,at lobbyists
self governance requires that we understand who is involved in self-governance and clear them out if they're no good. self governance requires that we liberty and more freedom, not choking ourselves with rules, so with all respect to the sponsor of mendment, i would urge no on both the amendment to the amendment and the underlying amendment. thank you. chair: thank you. wishes to yone who speak in support of the amendment? the in support of the amendment to amendment. is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? the gentleman from west virginia. mike stewart, west virginia. i stand in opposition to the amendment. is ess i say at what point this registration or declaration with the rnc. i go back to the point that the state should have right to determine who its represents are to the rnc. west virginia wants to elect three coal miners, three lobbyists or three insurance i say that's the
right of west virginia. that. the rnc to determine let's leave it to the states and let the states determine who the representatives are. and i oppose the amendment and i oppose the motion. chair: is there anyone who would favor to the in amendment to the amendment. madam chair, cindy pugh from minnesota. supportive of this amendment. in fact, i'm very grateful for it. i think it enhances transparency. of our constituency americans appreciate transparency. perception as we all know ecomes peoples' reality and i do believe it would be right for amendmentto pass this to the amendment and i'm hopeful for the support for the amendment as well but i do would be at this supportive of the will of the people and i'm grateful. to hank you very much committee man ash. chair: is there anyone else who ould like to speak in opposition.
the lady at the microphone over here. >> thank you. glasner from no new jersey. hat i don't understand and what's not clear in the new amendment to the amendment is eventually done ofh this scarlet letter file people who have had to disclose. with that clarification here, i don't see why people would have disclose. they should know eventually what's going to be done with how it's mation and going to be used against them. chair: thank you. to ne else that would like speak in favor of the amendment to the amendment. nyone in opposition to the amendment to the amendment. mr. evans. madam chair. my niece goes in to see her doctor and one of the questions questionnaire is whether there's a firearm owned in the house. with this liar regulation that's now collected? creativem line is this
collective information that know.w we have a right to i personally have confidence that each of the 50 states, five and the district of columbia to fully vet their committee men, their committee and their chair, find out every piece of information, whether they're a lobbyist or make the f they decision that they want to have a lobbyist, then more power to them. here are certain states that actually would benefit from having a committee man or a chair or a committee woman who is a lobbyist. but there's no reason why we should be the ones that collect ll of this information, put it in a secret file, be able to access it later for whatever purpose. to eliminate the them.nction between us and and so i oppose the amendment to the amendment because i think here comes a point where we actually have to trust our fellow colleagues in the other states to pick the people that best, not who we would want them to pick. thank you. the chair would like to
inognize anyone who is still support to the amendment to the amendment. would anyone like to speak in upport to the amendment to the amendment? would anyone like to speak in opposition to the amendment to the amendment? at the microphone here. andy name is judy schwabuck i'm from michigan. in michigan we select our rnc through the grass roots effort effort. as said, we elect our precinct delegates and elect and elect comes down to it our convention, and that person is elected by the people. now, i take great exception to as a body, we may e saying to mississippi that their representatives that they've asked to have sit on the rnc be eliminated, strictly because of his profession. would expect that the rnc
members would take into if anybody is lobbying them, and we know the difference. when we're having some where it's notds supposed to be. individualsto us as on the rnc to understand the difference and stand up for the of the people, but not for this body to eliminate the of the people to elect their people. thank you. you.r: thank is there anyone else who would like to speak on the amendment to the amendment? >> madam chairman. chair: yes. people's republic of california. i have an interest in a number states. i am trying to figure out under he proposed amendment and the underlying amendment, in which of those states am i going to be eligible or ineligible.
in business who are today have operated under the last seven or eight years, purposefully or otherwise as noncorporate publications. it's one of the things we're to try to change. but i question the advisability asking me to ard pick between the states that i eligible under, or my representatives. don't want to give the government or any pseudogovernment organization my private information that i so zealously guard in the first place. i would speak -- i am speaking against the amendment that's on the screen as well as underlying amendment. thank you madam chairman. chair: thank you. recognize the gentlelady from new mexico. new mexico.p from for the irman, i call question on the amendment to the
amendment. i assume you meant previous question. yes. closing in favor of debate on the amendment to the aye.ment please say [chorus of ayes] to r: we will move consideration of the amendment to the amendment. all those in favor of including the information that you green on your n creen, if you are in favor of adding that language, please say aye. ayes] of any opposed? [chorus of nays] the nays have it. we'll now move to a vote on the ain motion, if we could get it back up on the screen. do we have other people who heard on the be main motion? >> for the purpose of the amendment? o the
chair: we can't do an -- wait, yes, you can. it was an ing amendment to the amendment to the amendment. apologize. the gentleman is recognized for the purpose of the amendment to the amendment. jones from oklahoma, i propose deleting the language ineligible toll be serve as a member of the republican national committee or member of the he national committee and insert , and is age that is elected to the republican national committee shall disclose such to the secretary of the republican national her status as a obbyist and a manner to the secretary. i move to adopt that. chair: there's a motion. is there a second? a second? lacks a second. to what point does the gentleman
rise? madam chair, this is graham hunt from washington state and i the like to move to amend document to further clarify the paid lobbyist as that is which a lobbyist for the fec. submitted this amendment? do you have language we can put up on the board? not.have i can run down there. hair: if you do, i would appreciate it. is there anyone else who wishes to make an amendment to the amendment. >> request for information madam chair. chair: yes, sir. an active member on the floor, is it out of order for me to move the previous question on primary amendment? chair: well, he did not have an actual motion that has not been moved and seconded. so there's not a motion on the floor. so previous question would be in order. madam chair, i move.
chair: it's been moved and seconded. all those in favor of closing ebate on amendment 1.1, please sayay. [chorus of ayes] all those opposed, nay. all right. the ayes have it. will now move directly to a vote on amendment 1.1. those in favor of adopting please say aye. [ [a few ayes] opposed.l those chorus of nays] chair: the nays have are it. >> we're outside the facility where the republican national place.ion will take we're standing on level four of the quicken loans arena. in one of the hospitality suites which has been converted or broadcast purposes for
c-span and on this level there re some hospitality suites for guests but there are about 30 broadcast media suites, and i was involved in the early in-fighting, you might say, to get these suites for the media, share.that which is about normal. which is about what we normally do. the total e get number, they are actually individually by an by the house ess radio gallery and they did very this or c-span in location. the delegates will be seated facing all of them facing the podium.ich we call the we call it the podium complex. and while that seating chart has announced, it usually fan shake with people facing -- as they move out, they face inward toward the complex and we have i'aisles, a aisle and e and side
media with floor passes can move and what not. next week whenat the plan comes out and when the eats go down, and when the state stancions that show where the states will be seating will all the color will come in and take place, and you'll it.ly get a view of there are a number of stand-up broadcast conditions and some of each are at floor level on end, on the end zones. and then there are two huge booths at the far end for cnn and nbc. opted for those positions. they cost them more to build obviously than the others. others, fox, abc, and cbs a level up in what were handicapped seating areas where and we e built on them have other ample handicapped seating elsewhere, of course, in those positions. up ou have the broadcasters
here that are -- we call them non-network. that means they're not one of those five. may be affiliates of some of those, in other words, and hen we have those same groupings with stand-up positions on the floor and some level in handicapped broadcasting areas too, so they're everywhere. down on the floor, if you can see them, there are two major side camera stands, and those will have a television pool front tier and still photographers on the upper tiers. way on the center camera, if you can see it here, that faces the podium. a two-pool camera, television camera, and our house production camera on the front and the upper tiers will still be photographers. seats are in. they are fixed positions, you know, with tables and electrical internet capability, all built in, and they're now red, white th their
and blue and the stars, they fine.real with a stage, it reflects a rend that started in 1996 in san diego with steps in the front, and those steps were put we called podium that the stage was lowered somewhat to give more of a feeling of not like a u know, 10-foot high battleship approach where you look down on the delegates. endured. has we've had steps in every design since then. to us bygn was brought executive producer bill alungi company and the designer, joe stewart from los angeles and another designer new york. they have done this for us before and are experts at it. you can see it has large and it has lighted steps, and what we aren't seeing today today, in the tremendous way we can vary the look of this with lights, not just on the steps,
but everything. the lights can change to many colors throughout the stage. s you can see, people will enter from one side, make their speech at the point and they'll exit from the other side. a small band stand to one side where a house band will keep the flavor and there some other entertainment. lighting grids nd other things that hang, the lighting tress itself is 140 pounds which reminds me when we houston astro dome in 1992, it had been built very there were no records to show what the ceiling would hold. hung on they had ever there was 40-50,000 pounds and e were going to hang at least 125,000 pounds. so we had to do all these major studies to see that it would our weight, and we did. an acoustical
disaster for a convention type thing. for se it wasn't built spoken word at floor level and there was an echo in there that at ou said something loudly floor level, it echoed throughout the place in some capacity for 17 seconds, you sound would go into some of the crevices and come out ike, you know, an echo chamber louder than it went in. so we had to deal with that too. that brings us to the fact that these sports arenas are ore modern, this is more modern, and we have some acou to make l improvements here for our particular sound from floor level and they're oing to work fine, but we've been -- i think this is our fifth straight convention in a ports arena of approximately this size. prior to that, we two-dome stadiums, the europedome in new orleans in '88 in houston in me 1992. for now at least this has become see.standard of what you
as media what's known row. which is traditionally known as show row. and this time it was our idea of communications director to enhance it and make it more than just radio talk shows, and it will have broadcast positions in here and also the digital media, the new angle, this is a digital age, and it will all be in here. that will be defined spaces of different variations, and we have quite a seating design will here to spruce this place up. you can see a few of the initial just startedhey've on the scenic design today. this is the very beginning of that. a very popular hub of activities during the conventions. constantlyw is going all the time and it's a good lace to come by and see and be involved in.
announcer: the republican convention from cleveland starts monday. every minute on c-span. listen live on the free radio app. download from the apple store or google play. atch live or on demand anytime at c-span.org on your desk top, phone or tablet where you'll our convention coverage and the full convention schedule. follow us on c-span on twitter on facebook to see video of newsworthy moments. of the 2016 minute republican national convention starting monday at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span radio app, and c-span.org. announcer: supreme court justice apologizes for her remarks on donald trump this jonathan e'll talk to